Kings Cross fire 1987 news footage - YouTube Kings Cross fire 1987 news footage Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Uploaded on Nov 19, 2006 A fire shitted up the insides of an underground station in London, 31 died including the brave station officer from Soho, Colin Townsley was first in without BA, he did it to save many others. the London fire brigade havent forgotten his efforts. Category Britain Orders Subway Fire Probe - tribunedigital-chicagotribune Britain Orders Subway Fire Probe November 20, 1987|By Peter J. Shaw, Special to The Tribune. LONDON — The British government Thursday ordered a public inquiry into the cause of Wednesday night`s flash fire that killed at least 30 people in London`s busiest subway station.

London transport police and senior fire officials said the origin of the quick-spreading fire in the King`s Cross Underground station remained a mystery. The blaze erupted on an upward-bound wooden escalator at the end of the evening rush hour. Survivors spoke of a fireball that rapidly spewed choking black smoke through the subway passageways and platforms, still crowded with hundreds of travelers. Many of the dead were found in the gutted ticket hall, where the intense heat cracked concrete and melted ceiling tiles. Hospital officials said 17 severely burned bodies remained unidentified. Three of the 21 hospitalized survivors were in critical condition with what a plastic surgeon called ``very serious flash burns.`` London Transport officials rejected early speculation that rubbish accumulated beneath the escalator might have caught fire, saying the area was ``clean as a whistle`` after the flames. Paul Channon, the government`s transport minister, told Parliament that a public inquiry would determine the causes of the fire and ``make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learned.`` He said the findings would be published. ``This was a most unusual occurrence,`` said British Transport Police Chief Kenneth Ogram, adding that the investigators would not rule out any cause.

Ogram said telephoned claims of sabotage had been received, but he had no grounds to believe them. He gave no details. The fire was the worst in the 124-year history of the London Underground. Queen Elizabeth said she was deeply shocked by the disaster and sent sympathy to the families of the victims. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher visited the injured at University College Hospital and inspected the site of the blaze. Subway service in central London remained badly dislocated Thursday morning, causing widespread commuter chaos. Opposition members of Parliament and trade union leaders blamed staff cuts affecting London Transport, Fire Brigade services and hospitals for reducing safety levels as well as the ability of emergency services to respond to major accidents. Independent reports in 1985 and 1986 on safety standards of the subway system described much of it as a potential fire trap, citing poor storage of materials, inadequate communications and lack of fire training for train crews and station staff. Those reports recommended installation of smoke detectors, sprinklers, alarm bells and illuminated emergency exit signs.

London Transport officials said some of the recommendations had already been implemented and added, ``Our fire prevention procedures are among the most stringent anywhere.`` Phil Lloyd, a London fire officer, said, ``We are rather mystified at the moment why, at the end of the rush hour with a lot of people about, a relatively small fire can accelerate and cause such horrendous damage and injuries in such a small space of time.`` Lloyd said police forensic experts were searching for ``any accelerants, explosives or any other terrorist or fire accelerant that may have been used.`` Survivor Andrew Lee said he was halfway up the doomed escalator when ``a sheet of flame came across from the top of the escalator, filling the whole space right up to the ceiling.`` Lee and others turned around and hurried down toward the train platform ``as large pieces of flaming ceiling debris bounded past us.`` They escaped by boarding a just-arriving train, its driver unaware of the developing inferno. Lesley Bonner told reporters the heat was like an oven and the air filled with choking black smoke. ``I covered my face with a tissue and just ran but I found myself going towards the blaze.

I turned and managed to get away.`` Secretary Debbie Wren, 19, said she was on one of the esclators when she saw flames flickering and shouted ``the escalator`s on fire`` before jumping clear. People who could not get off the escalators were carried into the fire as they reached the top. Some who fled into restrooms later were found unconscious. Others, trapped only 20 feet below street level, died in the flames or from smoke inhalation. The heat cracked the concrete floor of the concourse and melted barriers. London Transport spokesman Bill Clarke said the fireballs overwhelmed early rescue attempts. ``Although the full emergency plan was put into operation, we simply were not prepared for the fire that followed,`` he said. Smoking was banned in the underground in 1985, after a nonfatal fire in the Oxford Circus station. Reports in 1985 and 1986 on safety standards of the underground system described much of it as a potential fire trap, citing poor storage of materials, inadequate communications and lack of fire training for train crews and station staff. Those reports recommended installation of smoke detectors, sprinklers, alarm bells and illuminated emergency exit signs.

London transport officials said some of the recommendations had already been implemented. MORE: Underground Fire at london Kings Cross Station 1987 - YouTube Underground Fire at london Kings Cross Station 1987 Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Uploaded on Sep 4, 2009 Underground Fire at london Kings Cross Station 1987 which killd 31 people and injured over 60 people. thanks for watching Please subscribe it will only take a second! Category BBC ON THIS DAY | 18 | 1987: King's Cross station fire 'kills 27' 1987: King's Cross station fire 'kills 27' At least 27 people have died after a fire at King's Cross station in central London. The blaze reportedly began at about 1930 GMT in a machine room under a wooden escalator.

The escalator connected the Piccadilly line - one of five underground train routes which run through King's Cross - with the mainline station. The fire started as the evening rush hour was trailing off but hundreds of commuters were still in the station which is London's busiest. Many passengers were trapped underground as the escalator went up in flames. More than 150 firefighters wearing breathing apparatus tackled the blaze and searched for survivors. But they were not able to bring the main fire under control until approximately 2150 GMT. It is feared the death toll could reach 40 after a search of the station has been completed. 'Major disaster' A fire brigade spokesman, Brian Clark, said the scene in the concourse at the top of the burnt escalator was one of total devastation. Mr Clark said tiles had come off walls and concrete was damaged because of the intense heat. "The situation there must have been very frightening and that is an understatement," he added. About 20 people, including four members of the emergency services, have been taken to hospital suffering from smoke inhalation and burns. The chairman of London Regional Transport (LRT), Sir Keith Bright, has described the blaze as a "major disaster".

Sir Keith said LRT was already implementing a policy to replace old wooden escalators with non-flammable metal ones. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she was "horrified" to hear of the "dreadful" fire and sent her deepest sympathies to the families of those who have been killed and injured. The Railway Inspectorate has started an investigation into the blaze and will advise Transport Secretary Paul Channon about ordering an inquiry. November 18, 1987: Fire at King's Cross Underground station leaves 31 dead - BT November 18, 1987: Fire at King's Cross Underground station leaves 31 dead The worst fire in the history of the London Underground killed 31 people and injured more than 100 when a stray match started a blaze beneath a wooden escalator. Print this story On November 18, 1987, the worst fire in the history of the London Underground killed 31 people and injured at least 100 more at King’s Cross station. The blaze started beneath a wooden escalator leading from the Piccadilly Line platforms to the mainline station at approximately 7.30pm.

Though relatively small to begin with, the fire’s heat soon ignited any nearby flammable materials, and at around 7.45pm a 600°C ball of fire and smoke exploded up from the escalators into the ticket hall, killing or seriously injuring those who remained there. Many passengers were trapped underground by the blaze, although most were fortunate to be able to escape on the Victoria Line, which was accessible via stairs. More than 150 firefighters tackled the blaze, which was only declared to be fully extinguished at 1.46am the next day. One, Colin Townsley, was killed in the initial blast, while several were hospitalised for exhaustion and smoke inhalation. What are your memories of the King's Cross fire? Were you, a friend or relation there that night? Let us know in the Comments section below. King's Cross fire - Did you know? King's Cross was, and remains, one of the Underground’s busiest stations, serving over 100,000 passengers at peak hours.

Although smoking had been banned in subsurface Tube stations in 1985, customers often lit cigarettes on their way to the surface, and it is now believed that the fire was started by a discarded match. In spite of the disaster, the Metropolitan Line section of the station was open for business the morning after the fire. An inquiry took place over 91 days the following year. It was severely critical of London Underground, which was found to have been negligent in training staff to deal with fires and evacuations. The recommendations in the inquiry report became law in 1989. These included the immediate banning of smoking in all Tube stations, and the phasing out of wooden escalators – though the last remained in operation at Greenford until as late as March 2014. A 1991 report discovered only eight of the 26 safety recommendations made by the inquiry had been implemented fully. One victim of the fire was not officially identified until 2004. He was eventually named as Alexander Fallon, a Scotsman who had been living rough in London at the time.

Fire sweeps King's Cross tube station: From the Guardian archive, 19 November 1987 | From the Guardian | The Guardian Share on Messenger Close Twenty-seven people died last night and dozens were taken to hospital after breathing in smoke after fire broke out under an escalator inside King's Cross underground station in central London . Late last night more people were trapped underground. Police and firemen were searching the tunnels. More than 150 firefighters and 30 engines were involved in what the fire brigade described as the most serious incident in recent years. Eight of those taken to hospital were understood to be seriously ill. Rescuers used lighting equipment borrowed from television camera crews, but almost two hours after the blaze started they were unable to get more than a few yards into the station. Transport police and firemen moved towards the station along Underground tunnels but the smoke prevented them getting through. A Transport Police spokesman said: 'There are dozens of tunnels under there.' Underground trains were kept running through the station to increase ventilation. The escalator that caught fire served the Piccadilly line. Five Underground lines intersect at the station, one of the biggest junctions on the system.

The injured were taken to University College Hospital and the Middlesex Hospital, both half a mile away, and to St Bartholomews in the City. The fire was discovered at about 7.30 pm, and smoke poured through into the mainline station concourse above. Passengers waiting for trains north were asked by loudspeaker to evacuate the station as scores of firemen moved in. Local residents also reported seeing the smoke billowing above ground into the main road. The body of one victim, a young man whose skin was completely blackened, was brought above ground shortly after 8.30 pm. He was found near the exit on the steps of the underground entrance beside St Pancras mainline railway station, across the road from King's Cross. Above ground on Euston Road there was traffic chaos as fire engines and ambulances made their way to the station through the tail end of the rush-hour traffic. The whole of the area around King's Cross and St Pancras was sealed off by the police.

[The final death toll for the King's Cross fire was 31, including fire brigade station officer Colin Townsley.] King's Cross (Fire) (Hansard, 19 November 1987) The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon) With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the fire last night at King's Cross station. At about 7.40 pm last night a fire broke out at King's Cross underground station on an escalator connecting the underground ticket hall area to the Piccadilly line platforms. Thirty people have lost their lives as a result of the fire; 20 were seriously injured. There has been extensive damage to the station ticket hall. The injured have been taken to St. Bartholomew's hospital, University College hospital, Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, and the Wittington hospital. I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families of those who have died and to those who have been injured. [HON.

MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should like to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue operations, especially the fire service, one of whose members lost his life in the fire, the Metropolitan and the British Transport police, one of whose officers is seriously injured ; and to the ambulance service, the hospitals involved and the staff of the London underground. They all worked with the utmost bravery in appalling conditions to deal with the casualties and with the large numbers of people who were trapped underground by the smoke and flames. Without their dedication, the numbers of casualties would undoubtedly have been even greater. I have decided that a formal investigation should be held into the disaster, conducted under the provisions of the Railway Acts. The evidence will be heard in public. I hope to be able to announce very shortly, after discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, the name of a senior QC to head the inquiry. The inquiry will be assisted by a member of the Department's railway inspectorate and by an expert in fires and fire prevention. The detailed arrangements for the inquiry will be announced as soon as possible. It will be for the inquiry to establish the causes of the disaster and to make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learned.

Its report will be published. London Regional Transport, in collaboration with the police and fire services, is already examining the causes of the accident and its findings will be made available to me and to the formal investigation. I understand from London Regional Transport that the Metropolitan and Circle lines through King's Cross are operating normally. Services on the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines were suspended this morning, but LRT hopes that they will be resumed later today, although initially trains will not stop at King's Cross station. It is too early to say when normal services will be resumed. Every year the London underground carries over 750 million passengers. I deeply regret that its generally fine record of safety has been marred by this accident. I am sure the thoughts of all hon. Members of this House are with those who have been bereaved, the injured and their families. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] § (Aberdeen, North) May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our condolences to the relatives of those who were killed and to those who have 1202 been severely injured and wish the survivors a speedy recovery? I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the emergency services.

Everyone concerned clearly did a splendid job and we are grateful to them for that. It is quite clear that a lot of questions will have to be answered and it may not be appropriate to put them now. However, I welcome the inquiry announced by the Secretary of State and especially the fact that it will be open, that the evidence will he heard in public and that the findings will be published. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will be extremely far-reaching and will deal not simply with the precise cause of the fire at King's Cross and its effects, but cover all the facets of the operations of London Transport which affect future safety and the public? Have the lessons learned from the Oxford Circus fire inquiry been put into practice? Have any of those recommendations not been implemented? When was King's Cross station last inspected by the London fire brigade? I understand that there should be an annual inspection. Even at this stage, can the Secretary of State say that the fire did not actually start on the escalator, but in a machine room or in some room underneath the escalator?

As the inquiry will take a considerable time to reach its findings, will the Secretary of State immediately institute a fire safety audit on areas within the underground where passengers would be particularly vulnerable and put at risk should a fire occur? If such areas are identified, will he ensure that there are frequent and rigorous fire watchers to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy? Will the Secretary of State also ensure that there is an immediate and urgent examination into the adequacy of the present sprinkler systems,? Will he ask other areas with underground systems such as Merseyside and Glasgow — although the circumstances of those systems are different from the London system—to consider their fire safety precautions very carefully? As I understand perfectly well that the Secretary of State cannot make a detailed statement today because the circumstances are still unclear, once he receives the result of the LRT, fire service and police inquiry, will he make an early statement so that we can consider whether any other immediate lessons might be learned? § Mr. Channon I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and I share the sentiment contained in the first portion of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman correctly said that there are a lot of questions to be answered and that is why an inquiry is urgently needed.

I have a whole list of the recommendations from the Oxford Circus inquiry that have been implemented. Of course that inquiry will be wholly relevant to the King's Cross inquiry when it is set up. As the House is aware and as the hon. Gentleman said, all underground stations are required to be inspected annually. In fact, King's Cross was inspected in April of this year. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about the machine room, it would be most unwise of me or the House to speculate on the cause of the accident at this stage in advance of an inquiry. I will, of course, discuss with the chairman of London Regional Transport—and have done so already—whether any immediate action needs to be taken, and naturally everything is being carefully considered. 1203 The inquiry is required to investigate the cause of the accident and all the circumstances surrounding it and report on those and any other relevant matters, including recommendations designed to prevent a recurrence of this accident elsewhere. It is for the inquiry to decide how to conduct itself, but I would have thought that any reasonable matter could be considered. § (Holborn and St. Pancras) May I join the Secretary of State and my hon.

Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in paying tribute to those people who risked their lives, and in one case lost his life, in an effort to save the lives of others and get people to hospital from the holocaust at King's Cross? I hope that others, besides paying tribute to such services today, will ensure that they are not reduced in numbers tomorrow and over the next year. I hope that we do not go ahead with the proposed 800 reduction in the staff of the London fire brigade. I hope that the cuts of over 200 beds at the hospital visited by the Prime Minister today will be restored and that the health authority visited by the Prime Minister and her hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will have sufficient funds to pay enough nurses and other staff to provide a proper service in the area.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is the third major fire at a tube station in my constituency in three years since the Oxford Circus fire; that few, if any, physical changes have been made to King's Cross underground station since then ; that there have been cuts in the staff deployed in maintaining the escalators, and that further cuts are proposed; that the staff at a station with eight platforms and a veritable rabbit warren of tunnels have been cut from 16 to 10; that the cleaning staff have been cut from 14 to two; that the training provided for station staff to deal with fires lasts for 30 minutes, and is not specific to their stations; and that no members of staff were taught how to help in an evacuation of the station? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the Chaiman of London Regional Transport recently said— referring to other difficulties—that too much risk had been accepted in the interests of economy? Will he confirm that the Government will not require any further such economies?

Will he also make representations to the management of British Rail to persuade it not to take the threatened disciplinary action against staff at King's Cross who were yesterday threatened with such action for distributing leaflets which said that part of the system between there and Moorgate was a fire danger? Will the right hon. Gentleman not only provide the funds to make the underground system safe, but change the management, so that it is composed of people who take it seriously? § Mr. Channon I understand the hon. Gentleman's natural and rightful concern, as a constituency Member who is obviously very seriously affected by the disaster —as, indeed, is the whole House. I cannot agree with all that he has said, and the House would not expect me to. Nevertheless, I shall try to deal with the points that he has made. I am assured by both the fire and the health authorities that they are more than satisfied with the adequacy of the resources available to them. Certainly, the emergency services seemed to operate with astonishing efficiency last night. As for the cuts in underground staff, it is the prime 1204 and the statutory duty of London Regional Transport to operate the underground safely. Safety is paramount in staffing considerations.

An annual review of training and procedures has been taking place for some time with the London fire brigade, and efforts are continually made to improve procedures. There has been a considerable increase in investment on LRT, a good deal of which will be devoted to safety measures. I assure the House that we shall go on with our large programme of investment in LRT, much of which is spent on the underground. That investment has risen considerably since 1984, and has included money spent on the renewal of lifts and escalators, and specific expenditure allocated for health and safety purposes. With respect to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), many of his remarks are more properly a subject for discussion by the inquiry, rather than ones for snap judgments by any of us. § (Hampstead and Highgate) Let me join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in conveying deep regret to all those who have suffered.

As one who has used the London Underground for some 40 years, I believe that, in view of the standards that the staff have always shown with regard to safety and protecting the interests of passengers, it does no good to their morale to make the sort of remarks that we have heard from one person this afternoon. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks on a BBC news programme at five past seven this morning, implying that the fire had been caused by rubbish under an escalator, were not what we expect from an impartial public service broadcasting organisation? § Mr. Channon My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the London underground carries hundreds of millions of passengers a year and has an extremely good safety record. He is right also to point to the extreme devotion to duty of those who work on the London underground, in particular those who were on duty last night and today at King's Cross station, the many people who came back to work, and, indeed, others who helped in the appalling disaster. As to the point about the BBC and speculation as to the causes of the accident, it is impossible at this stage to make any judgment, and it is irresponsible to make any attempt to do so.

The inquiry will get to the bottom of it. The whole House and the country will know the results of it. § (Lagan Valley) As we on this Bench recently had cause to be grateful for the sympathy that was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members, on behalf of the Ulster community I express our sincere condolences to the bereaved and our concern for the injured. Hon. Members Mr. Channon Yes, I understand my hon. Friend's concern and, obviously, his interest for his constituents and, indeed, the constituents of many hon. Members who travel on the line. I certainly confirm what he said. Travel on British rail and on the London underground is by far the safest form of travel. § (Southwark and Bermondsey) May I join the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in expressing condolences to those who have lost relatives and to those who are now in hospital? I pay tribute to those who worked selflessly and, in one case, tragically, to save the lives of others. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, of all fires, underground fires require particular preventive measures. They are the most difficult to deal with.

The television pictures illustrated how horrific the fire was. When the inquiry takes place, will he make sure that evidence from the emergency services and from passengers throughout London is acceptable so that the lessons that can be learnt from the specific tragedy can immediately be applied to prevent tragedies throughout the network and throughout the capital? I hope that no evidence will be excluded on the ground of its irrelevance if it will save lives. § Mr. Channon I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which will generally be welcomed in the House. The conduct of the inquiry must be a matter for the chairman. I cannot lay down how he will conduct the inquiry. As I said, the inquiry is required to investigate the cause of the accident and all the circumstances surrounding it. They are extremely wide terms of reference. I am sure that the inquiry will want to get to the bottom of the incident to see what lessons may exist to prevent any recurrence ever again. § (Mid-Ulster) Will the Minister be assured that the people of the Province whom I and my colleagues represent extend their sincere and heartfelt sympathy to those who have been bereaved in the appalling tragedy? We earnestly pray that those who have been hurt will soon enjoy a speedy recovery.

Will the Minister accept that we welcome a full-scale inquiry into the matter? Perhaps snap judgments about what happened may not be of best assistance to those who have suffered. § I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I endorse the last part of his remarks. § (Liverpool, Broadgreen) As a fireman for 26 years before coming to this place, I understand the conditions that were encountered and the tragedy that last night's events have inflicted on families. I add my condolences to those families, particularly to the family of Colin Townsley, a 45-year-old station officer from Soho, and to the other firemen who were injured. They typified the dedication and self-sacrifice of our emergency services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the safety aspect of all rail premises, particularly on the underground, will be looked into as a result of this 1206 tragedy? Will procedures for evacuation and escape in an accident be looked into? Will he ensure that maps of the warrens of King's Cross and other tube stations are made available to the emergency services and not locked away in the ticket office, as they were yesterday?

To support my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), will the Secretary of State, with the Treasury and the Home Office, ensure that the 800 jobs due to go in London and other metropolitan areas are saved by the Government, because yesterday's tragedy and the loss of life of members of the public and of the emergency services will pale into insignificance if these cuts go ahead? § Mr. Channon I thank the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his opening remarks. Anyone who saw the fire service at work could not fail to have been deeply impressed and full of admiration for what it did. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the work that it did and to the sorrow that we all feel at the death of one of the fire officers. There is a conflict of evidence on the point about maps. I heard directly contradictory information about whether maps were available, so I asked immediately for the chairman of London Regional Transport to investigate this matter urgently to ensure that maps are available, if they were not last night. I do not prejudge whether they were or not ; it will be a matter for the inquiry to consider.

We must take urgent action in advance of that. As to the fire services in London, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has considerably increased current expenditure, and he is keeping a close eye on the matter. § (Christchurch) I thank my right hon. Friend for the concern that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have shown about this matter. Will he reconsider the ratio of investment in LRT between new investment, such as the docklands light railway, and investment in core infrastructure maintenance? Does he accept that the public transport is essential in a city such as London and that part of King's Cross is part of the oldest tube railway in the world? If we are to maintain and improve public transport, which is essential, we must build new lines and ensure that old lines are modernised and invested in to keep them up to scratch. § Mr. Channon I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall consider the pattern of investment in the London underground. As I told the House, much of the investment is aimed at renewing and modernising infrastructure.

Grant settlement for next year allows for high levels of investment, including renewal of lifts and escalators, specific expenditure for health and safety purposes — safety considerations underlie a major part of the total investment programme—and renewal of track structures and signalling. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, which I shall examine. § (Woolwich) I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly the form of the inquiry that he has now announced. Will he accept that when such large numbers of people are packed so tightly in such a confined space, as happens on the London underground, any sudden emergency puts life at risk? Will he therefore specifically ensure that the inquiry considers LRT's emergency procedures, the frequency with which 1207 those procedures are not only reviewed but practically tested and, most important, the adequacy of the training given to the staff in the operation of those procedures? § Mr. Channon The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. I have read to the House on a number of occasions what the inquiry must investigate and it would be unlikely, even astonishing, if it were not to investigate the cause of the accident or the circumstances surrounding it. I should have thought that the emergency procedures and matters that the hon.

Gentleman raised were wholly relevant to that point. § (Harborough) As one who had to use the emergency telephone number and stay up all night, fortunately without justification, I should like to pay tribute to the ladies who dealt with that emergency service; they behaved splendidly, as did all the emergency services. In his earlier remarks, my right hon. Friend said that there were lessons to be learned. Would one of those lessons that he may consider learning be the feasibility of establishing some form of automatic sprinkler protection in places of public congregation? § Mr. Channon I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. The emergency services reacted to the appalling disaster with impressive and astonishing speed and efficiency. That was admirable and encouraging. Of course, the question of sprinklers and other such matters will be dealt with in the inquiry, and we shall consider them extremely carefully. § (Newham, South) Is the Secretary of State aware that for some months concern has been expressed by London Members about the safety of the London underground? Written Question No. 15 today is evidence of that.

Does he agree that in striking the balance that is always present between efficiency and safety, the regulations and management decisions inherent in that balance should receive the widest possible consent and agreement between representatives of those employed on the underground and representatives of those who travel on it? § Mr. Channon I am sure that as a general statement that must be right. I ought to tell the House that the safety record of the London underground has been generally excellent considering the age, density of traffic and all the circumstances surrounding it. It compares well with underground systems abroad of a comparable age. I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's point. Several Hon. Members London Underground's history London Underground's history This is an archived page. The tube is an engineering marvel: 150 years in the making, with 253 miles of passageway snaking under the capital, carrying millions of people every day. It's crowded, uncomfortable and expensive - but it defined London. And it's ours.

Time Out champions one of the true wonders of the Western World, and pioneers who built it Peter WattsPosted: Tue Apr 17 2007 Commuters at Leytonstone staton around 1900 Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London It was, on the face of it, a stupid idea. Running trains, and steam trains at that, in tunnels underneath the London streets. In 1862, the Times described it as an ‘insult to common sense’ and it was probably right. But the London Underground turned out to be one of the great engineering feats of modern times, the world’s only steam-driven underground railway and the first electrified underground railway. A socially egalitarian and liberating phenomenon, it helped drive London’s rapid expansion and got people to work on time, while providing the city with a bold new identity through impeccable branding that incorporated iconic typography, cartography and architecture.

And yet… And yet… It’s fair to say that the Underground remains unloved by Londoners, and it would take a more dishonest contrarian than I to defend the grime, the delays, the heat, the way it’s so busy and unreliable and the fact that, year after year, we are asked to pay more for a service that doesn’t seem to be getting any better, cleaner, quicker or cooler. But that’s a fault of management and decades of underinvestment, not of a system that remains something Londoners should treasure as remarkable, groundbreaking and emphatically ours. West Brompton Underground station in 1876. Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London The story began with Charles Pearson, the first in a succession of underground visionaries. It was he who first proposed the notion of ‘trains in drains’ in 1845, when the railway was a relatively new invention (the first steam passenger service only opened in 1830).

Pearson, instrumental in the removal of the anti-Catholic inscription on the foot of the Monument, was a progressive and a pioneer – his persistence helped persuade the House of Commons to approve a bill in 1853 to build a subterranean railway between Paddington and Farringdon. The reason such a hare-brained, experimental scheme received approval was one of necessity. London roads were suffering from terrible overcrowding and the mainline railways all stopped on the fringes of the West End and City thanks to a Royal Commission of 1846 that declared central London a no-go area for railway companies. A method of linking the mainline stations of Paddington, Euston and King’s Cross was needed, and Pearson’s plan fitted the bill. He helped raise the finance from private investors and the City of London, and excavation began in 1860, with a shallow trench dug beneath Euston Road and then covered over. Thousands of poor residents were displaced in the process. The Metropolitan Line opened for business on January 10 1863, clocking 30,000 passengers on the first day. A celebratory banquet had been held the previous day at Farringdon.

Pearson was not among the guests, having passed away the previous year. Another absentee was Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, who was approaching his 80th birthday, and said he wanted to spend as much time above ground as he possibly could (he died two years later). Park Royal's rudimentary station in 1907 Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London The Metropolitan was a success, with 11.8 million passengers (the population of London was about 3.2 million) braving the foul, smoke-filled conditions in its first year. The Metropolitan’s owners claimed the ‘invigorating’ atmosphere ‘provided a sort of health resort for people who suffered from asthma’, but they also allowed drivers to grow beards in a futile bid to filter out the worst of the fumes. A civil servant who had spent time in Sudan said the smell reminded him of a ‘crocodile’s breath’. One attempt to improve conditions saw smoking banned, until an MP objected and insisted that all railways provided a smoking carriage.

Smoking was not banned again on the trains until 1985, and at stations until after the King’s Cross fire of 1987, itself the culmination of 30 years of neglect. Among those to benefit most from the new railway were the lowest-paid workers, who were entitled to use a special, cheap pre-6am train. Social journalist Henry Mayhew interviewed some such passengers in 1865, first explaining that ‘this subterranean method of locomotion had always struck us as being the most thoroughly Cockney element of all within the wide range of Cocaigne’. The labourers he spoke to all voiced their enthusiasm for a service that allowed poorer Londoners to live further out, sparing them a six-mile walk to work and allowing their families to live in two rooms rather than one. As the Metropolitan expanded westwards, it opened up new areas for Londoners to move to, and the overcrowded city d slowly started to expand – one of the reasons that London still has such a relatively low population density.

When Hammersmith received its first station in 1864 it was still a village ‘best known for spinach and strawberries’, writes Christian Wolmar in his definitive ‘The Subterranean Railway’ (2004), but it soon became a major interchange. This pattern was repeated throughout the Underground’s history. When the Northern Line hit Morden in 1926, it was a village of 1,000 inhabitants; five years later, its population was 12,600. The success of the Metropolitan led to the building of the District Line along the Victoria Embankment, and then the creation of a Circle Line to link the two. Unfortunately, the two east-west lines were run by rivals, James Forbes and Edward Watkin, whose perpetual bickering meant the Circle took twenty years to complete. When it was finished in 1884, Watkins’ Met operated trains that ran clockwise, while Forbes’ District controlled those in the other direction; such was the antagonism between the two, the companies refused to sell tickets for their rival line, meaning a passenger might end up paying for 20 stops rather than seven.

When the Circle was finally electrified in 1905 the companies used different systems which proved incompatible, resulting in a further three-month delay. Because the Underground was built haphazardly by private investment and with no central planning, there were many such inconsistencies. Some destinations had more than one station, built by competing interests, which explains why there is such a poor interchange at Hammersmith between the Hammersmith & City and District Lines, and why Oxford Circus has two different surface stations on either side of Argyll Street. This is also why there are so many ghost stations on the network – about 40 – built without adequate knowledge of whether they were actually needed. The entrance to Finsbury Park station in 1909 Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London The completion of the Circle Line marked the last of the sub-surface lines, built by the simple, cut-and-cover method. Advances in tunnelling and the use of electrified rails now allowed for the building of deep-level lines that gave birth to the phrase ‘tube’ and allowed London’s network to really connect the dots beneath the capital.

The first was the cramped City & South London line from City to the Elephant & Castle, later incorporated into the Northern Line, which was opened in 1890 by the future king Edward VII. This was followed by the Waterloo & City, Central, Bakerloo, Piccadilly and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead (now the Charing Cross branch of the Northern), all before 1907. This splurge of lines occurred within a narrow window of opportunity after the invention of suitable tunnelling technology and before the appearance of the motorised bus. It was aided by gullible investors (who never quite received the returns they were promised), public demand and London’s favourable geological conditions – the capital’s clay being an ideal substance through which to tunnel. The last four of these lines were built by American financier Charles Tyson Yerkes, who also controlled the District and was the first person to attempt to realise a unified vision of London’s chaotic underground network.

A property speculator with a questionable reputation (he served time in prison in Philadelphia for embezzlement) Yerkes put together numerous complex financial schemes to get his lines built, often using capital from the States, but never got the chance to cash in on his success, dying in 1905. The Circle Line platform at Notting Hill in 1919 Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London Yerkes left an extraordinary legacy. While lines such as City & South London never proved popular with the public – something that had much to do with the fact that the trains, or ‘padded cells’, were built without windows because the manufacturers figured there was nothing to see down there – his Central Line was a hit. This was largely because, like the Metropolitan half a century before, it served major transport routes, relieving strain on crowded streets above. There were drawbacks – the line followed the road pattern because the tunnellers didn’t want to pay compensation to surface landowners, so there were unnecessary kinks – but the Central Line was a groundbreaking service, attracting 100,000 passengers daily.

For a start, it only had one class of travel, and one price, hence the nickname the d d Twopenny Tube. It also had some innovative engineering aspects (each station was built atop a slight incline, meaning trains naturally slowed when entering stations and sped up when leaving, while the flat face of the train pushing air in front of it provided much-need ventilation) and carriages were considerably plusher than on the City & South London. Yerkes’ desire for a unified service also led to the introduction of what can be seen as the first attempt at branding on the tube – the Leslie Green-designed distinctive dried-blood-coloured tiles of the surface stations – something pursued by the man who followed. Frank Pick began working for Yerkes’ Underground Electric Railway Limited (UERL), which owned all the underground lines other than the Metropolitan and the Waterloo & City, in 1906. Over the next 30 years, in partnership with Lord Ashfield, general manager of UERL and future chairman of London Transport, he helped make the tube the ‘most famous and respected transport system in the world’.

Historian Nikolaus Pevsner believes Pick’s accomplishments to be greater still: in 1942 he described him as ‘the greatest patron of the arts whom this century has so far produced in England and indeed the ideal patron of our age’. He is certainly one of the few transport gurus to have met Stalin, Hitler and Churchill. Pick’s reputation was based on his eye for design. He introduced the roundel, borrowed from the London General Omnibus Company, but made famous by the tube; he asked calligrapher Edward Johnston to design the tube’s unique font; commissioned beautiful posters by Man Ray, Graham Sutherland and Edward Nash; introduced each line’s distinctive patterned seat-covers or moquettes; appointed architect Charles Holden to design modernist stations, most famously at Arnos Grove; and in 1931 he paid Harry Beck five guineas to come up with a new kind of map that would simplify the most complicated transport system in the world. All the while, the tube continued to spread east, west, north and even – occasionally – south, and was by 1934 carrying 410 million passengers a year.

Pick can be said to be as responsible for the image London projects around the world as Christopher Wren, George Gilbert Scott or Norman Foster. Even today, Transport for London is well aware of the value of the brand, and jealously guards icons such as the roundel and Beck’s map from even the most loving of imitators. Charle's Holden's Oakwood station in 1933 Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London Pick’s definition of the tube did not end there. In tandem with Lord Ashfield, he also arranged the integration of London’s various transport systems in 1933 under the umbrella London Transport, ensuring that an underground network that had hitherto been privately funded and unprofitable became publicly supported, thanks in part to Leader of London County Council (and Peter Mandelson’s grandfather) Herbert Morrison. Finance has always been the failing of the tube, largely because, as Wolmar astutely points out, the early railwaymen ‘were building a fantastic resource for Londoners whose value could never be adequately reflected through the fare box which was their only source of income’.

This was as true in the days of private entrepreneur and public ownership as it is with today’s uncomfortable mish-mash, the great experiment of the Public Private Partnership. All too briefly London Transport papered over this failing through a combination of Ashfield and Pick’s acumen and the fact that, following the depression, there was greater confidence in public ownership, and more skill in the manner with which it was executed. But this was soon diluted with the World War II (in which the tube played its own valuable role), after which, rebuilding the country took precedence. Train controller Frederick Barron in the control tower at Upminster depot in 1959. The track diagram has geographically mointed point switches Image courtesy London Transport Museum ( ) © Transport For London Which, more or less, is where we are today. The tube has acquired only two new lines since Yerkes’ frenzy: the Victoria, which took 20 years from planning to opening in 1968, and the Jubilee, hewn in part from the Bakerloo Line and extended magnificently in 2000. Years of under-investment have taken their toll, and the system looks haggard and worn.

Recent years have seen some improvement, but the cost to users has soared. Even the ongoing improvements leave the system, temporarily at least, worse off – with stations closed for months and entire lines closed weekend after weekend, reinforcing the public’s lack of sympathy for this ancient marvel. So it’s no wonder that we look upon the city’s mighty works and despair. But perhaps we should, every now and then at least, reflect on what the city would be like if the tube had never existed, be thankful for the visionaries of the past, and hopeful that their legacy will once more receive the attention and adulation it deserves.

Question: Which London underground station was gutted by fire in 1987?
Answer: Kings Cross